Label Red is Launched!

Well, Well Well! Double page adds on the paper, small ads everywhere else extolling the virtues of a RED credit card, with APR of 15% or thereabouts, with 1% of sales (excluding taxes of course!) going to Africans, and the interest going to American Express.

OOOOOOOOH I can't wait to get one! How cool as I pay for my holiday flights, I can whip out this wonderful RED card, and everyone will see me with my RED AMEX card and with a clear conscience, I can pollute the planet, have a holiday, avoid the glare of the sun shining through the Ozone Layer with my RED shades, stroll manfully along the beach in my Gap shorts and help Africans.

I am gonna Orgasm all over my U2 collection........... oooooooo Bono you make me cream myself ..... I am so excited by this I will buy ALL your records, All your CDs, all your Merchandize three times over ....ooooooh how I LOVE HARD COMMERCE ....... and of course I will do it wearing Armani, and wipe up the mess with my Gap T-shirt...... now all we need is some RED washing powder to clean it all up! I can't wait for Christmas!

I'd be interested to read how often the funds will be dispersed and who keeps the interest on collected money -- AmEx or the fund. "Hard commerce" rings of hard consumerism -- irresponsible consumption that isn't sustainable and can hurt developing countries. If you're providing them with fair wage jobs, it doesn't matter if their local resources are being stripped bare without replenishment and the rivers are full of poisons.

Is the demonization of philanthropy some sort of "punk" motion that Bono's trying to make by implying that traditional methods of aid don't work or are exhausted? Because I think they can work and need better planning more than anything else.

As for traditional philanthropy, doesn't American Express offer a normal card (Blue) that gives back at least 1% of purchase money when paid off regularly? I wonder if I were to put that cash back in a high interest account for a year if it wouldn't be more money contributed than this Red card... and I'd know the breakdown of who received the funds.

Jobs, wages? Gimme a break!

Who needs a 'job' if they can grow their own food, draw their own water, build their own shelter? Do the bushmen of the Kalahari 'need' jobs? Did the Native Americans need jons? Do the ABoriginals of Australia 'need' 'jobs'?

The problems in Africa stem from one incontovertible fact : Africa is being 'used' by western 'civilisation' to provide cheap raw materials for our 'lifestyle', to enable the elites to hoard vast wealth. The African Peoples were 'conquered' by Europeans for that reason, and that reason alone.

Anyone who believes that 'Progress' was, and still is, the motivation for such behaviour, is operating under a severely conditioned and limited worldview.

Bono and Geldof are but two obvious and pertinent examples. The millions of people who still insist upon driving cars, which are destroying our world (Hill of Tara), who would to a man/woman claim to feel safer in their cars, than they do walking down a street at night, are also less obvious examples!

And those that insist on flying to far off beaches, or 'doing' 'world tours' are even further divorced from reality.

"Red is where desire meets virtue, where consumerism meets philanthropy, where shopping attempts to meet the need of a continent in crisis, where once HIV/Aids meant a death sentence but where two pills a day can now have you back at work in 40 days.

Really the deal is this. These brands are prepared to share their profits with the Global Fund to Fight Aids in the hope that the association with Red will bring them to new and more loyal customers. At certain price points a consumer usually has a few choices when it comes to t-shirts, trainers and mobile phones. A product Red partner, such as Gap or Nike, hopes it will give them something else: an emotional attachment. It may reflect the values they already have or the values they aspire to: we don't mind."

Complete bullshit. Encourage people to research charitable organisations and donate to those they have sympathy with. Anything else is simply assuaging your conscience as you get get a funky t-Shirt or whatever.

Bono in the Guardian today:
"Red is where desire meets virtue, where consumerism meets philanthropy, where shopping attempts to meet the need of a continent in crisis, where once HIV/Aids meant a death sentence but where two pills a day can now have you back at work in 40 days."

Possibly even worse than Bono's article itself (though you'ld think the fucker's rich enough he could afford a competent ghostwriter), are his defenders in the comments thread. They're all some variant of this one, from some arse called Telemachiad:

"Go on guys, joke about Bono being a rich hypocrit etc. etc. laugh it up - and do nothing."

The idea that someone might disagree with Bono's approach and therefore do something else doesn't seem to have occured to these people. It's Bonoism or nothing. I guess it's another example of the "reflexive impotence" k-punk has talked about; we can't even imagine taking action unless we've got a celebrity to tell us what to do.

Bono, Amex and the vilest scam.

After much delving I have been able to find solid info on this scam.

Not too surprisingly it turns out that members of the board of AMex are also members of the boards of the companies that make and sell AIDS medicines, so there's a conflict of interest straight away, and that Amex's primary concern here is to garner NEW CARD CUSTOMERS amongst the young (more debt) ....... they call it 'good marketing'! Sheeeeessh!

Not only that but all US supported AIDS related work in Africa is by US law required to promote abstinence (from sex, before marriage), whilst at the same time advise against the use of condoms...........

On myspace there's JOIN(RED) and I have started a campaign of informing people through it by messaging them individually (there's more than 520,000 of them ... so if I have to do it on my own, it's gonna take forever, and I ain't got forever) with links to the detailed analyses of what this scam really is.

If you have found more relevant info, please feel free to post it here, or on myspace.

If any of you are on myspace, and feel like joining in there's a group I have started up called INC(RED)ULOUSCONSUMERSZZZZ!! with the info on how the campaign works, in the topic "celebrity myspace charity scandal! Propaganda?"

WASHINGTON D.C. - U2's Bono, well recognized for his campaigns to reduce poverty and treat AIDS in Africa is backing a videogame which promotes the invasion and destruction of Venezuela in order to check "a power hungry tyrant" who has "seized control of Venezuela and her oil supply." Bono has failed to respond to concerns raised by the Venezuelan Solidarity Network about his funding of this project.

"Mercenaries 2: World in Flames," created by Los Angeles based Pandemic/Bioware Studios, simulates a mercenary invasion of Venezuela in the year 2007. Pandemic is a subcontractor for the US Army and CIA funded Institute for Creative Technologies, which uses Hollywood techniques to mount war simulations in California's high desert in order to conduct military training. "Mercenaries 2: World in Flames" simulates destruction in downtown Caracas, and promises to leave no part of Venezuela untouched.

Elevation Partners is an investment firm that Bono helped create in order to exploit marketing opportunities between U2 and its fans, including projects from Pandemic/Bioware Studios. Pandemic states that as a partner in Elevation Partners, Bono "has visibility into all projects at Pandemic and Bioware."

Pandemic's target market is young men of military recruitment age and indeed this is not Pandemic's first military adventure.MORE ...

[This site also includes a letter of protest to Bono from Chuck Kaufman, Actions/Emergency Response Committee].

Attorney General Phillip Ruddock stated last week in relation to Australia’s censorship laws that “material which urges or advocates terrorist acts should not be available for sale”. There can be no doubt that the activity simulated in ‘Mercenaries 2’ is a terrorist act. The hostile and violent removal of a democratically elected President for the purposes of obtaining access to exploit natural resources is no doubt an act of State-Endorsed terrorism.

The question is whether a video game can be imbued with the ability to advocate actions taken in the game? Considering the involvement of the U.S Army and its Institute of Creative Technologies in military gaming, I’d say yes.

Pandemic Studios insists that “Venezuela was chosen for the setting of Mercenaries 2 because it is a fascinating and colourful country, full of wonderful architecture, geography and culture.” The developer describes the game as “an explosive open-world action game set in a massive, highly reactive, war-torn world. A power-hungry tyrant messes with Venezuela's oil supply, sparking an invasion that turns the country into a warzone.”

The current American Express Red campaign cries out for the kind of intricate semiotic dissection Roland Barthes pioneered in Mythologies. The ad – which shows happy, smiling supermodel Gisele embracing happy, smiling African Maasai warrior, Keseme – is a succinct emblem of the current ruling ideology.

The image, with its evocation of ideas of Culture and Nature, Consumerism and Debt, independence and dependence – fairly drips with polysemic resonances. There is enough here to keep semiologists busy for years.

[...]

We confront here the curious mixture of brutal cynicism and dewy-eyed piety that is so characteristic of late capitalist culture. The billboard version of the American Express ad tells us that ‘this card is designed to eliminate Aids in Africa’. Even when we dismiss this as obvious nonsense – the most credulous consumer cannot but be aware that the card was designed to increase the profits of American Express – the ideological blackmail still holds: how can anything which assists in the struggle against Aids in Africa possibly be wrong?

We’ve already touched upon one reason: campaigns such as this occlude and mystify the systemic character of the relationship between western capital and the third world. The picturesque image of a ‘traditional’ Maasai warrior beguiles us into forgetting the way in which western institutions profit from Third World debt. It also photoshops out capital’s attempt, in Zizek’s words, to ‘export the (necessary) dark side of production – disciplined, hierarchical labour, ecological pollution – to “non-smart” Third World locations.’

Another, related, reason is that Product Red promises to eliminates politics as such. If the invisible hand of the credit card user can ameliorate the problem of Aids in Africa, there is no need for a political response at all – what John Hayes of American Express calls ‘conscientious commerce’ will be sufficient. In this way, Product Red goes beyond using a Masaai tribesman to advertise American Express, and uses him to sell neo-liberal ideology itself. ---Mark K-punk

Not only that but all US supported AIDS related work in Africa is by US law required to promote abstinence (from sex, before marriage), whilst at the same time advise against the use of condoms............

Approximately one-third of all the funds received to date [see table below] by the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Maleria were sourced from the US Administration, which has the only permanent seat on the Fund's Board and oversees and approves/disapproves all grant applications. Moreover, the funds are held in an account at the US-controlled World Bank. Incidentally, the only private sector donations to the fund announced to date have been the $150m provided by the Bill Gates Foundation, contributions from Product Red not yet being known.

Furthermore, there is a grey area concerning the actual status of Product Red contributions: the amounts collected on purchases are not actually charitable donations, but franchise fees paid by participating companies, AMEX, Apple etc, to the owners [a consortium that includes Bono/Schriver's DATA organisation] of the Product Red brand for its use in promoting their products.

South Africa. In December 2005, the Global Fund Board voted not to continue funding an existing grant for HIV prevention activities in South Africa. The Board decided that the grant, implemented by an NGO named loveLife, had failed to sufficiently address weaknesses in its implementation. Press accounts quote a Global Fund representative explaining that it had become difficult to measure how the loveLife prevention campaign was contributing to the reduction of HIV/AIDS among young people in South Africa. Additionally, the representative reportedly stated that the Board had repeatedly requested that loveLife revise its proposals and address concerns regarding performance, financial and accounting procedures, and the need for an effective governance structure. A Global Fund spokesman was quoted as saying that “loveLife is extremely costly, there are programs that have been very effective, which cost a fraction of what loveLife costs. It would be irresponsible of the Global Fund to spend almost $40 million without seeing results.” LoveLife officials were reportedly surprised that the Global Fund ultimately decided to discontinue funding the grant, particularly since there were some reported differences of opinion regarding the matter between the Fund’s Technical Review Panel, Secretariat, and the Board.

Additionally, loveLife officials reportedly argued that the decision was politically motivated and influenced by U.S. emphasis on abstinence in HIV prevention efforts. One press account quoted a loveLife official as saying, “Obviously the strength of conservative ideologies is spilling over into the field of HIV and HIV prevention and it has direct impact on programs like loveLife.” According to a loveLife press release, the decision to discontinue funding the program will substantially curtail South Africa’s efforts to prevent HIV infections among young people, because the Global Fund’s grant supported one third of the program’s budget.

On another note relating to first/third world... sorry, developed/developing world issues.

Here in New Zealand I just got back from a Climate Change Festival (haha) talk-thing. First up were a couple of local boffin type scientists who had a great array of awesome graphs (I do design and have a genuine passion for the representation of information) and spoke about the research being done in Antarctica drilling the ocean bed etc to develop better historical climate models, and projections for the future based on current rates of increased carbon output etc. Fairly dry stuff that everyone has read about already, albeit covered with more depth than you get in most newspaper or pop magazine articles.

Next up a woman from NZs Ministry of The Environment, with an American (possibly Canadian) accent... my first thought was, damn those Americans know how to talk, because she was so not a boffin type scientist. Anyhow, she was speaking on the social impact of climate change, and preambles about how Kyoto took 10 years to ratify, which when you're dealing with climate change dating to millions of years is a very short span of time. And how theres "a top to bottom thing going on" with the developing countries like India and China where most people live in abject poverty, so they're going to need "a helping hand", and the developed countries are going to have to bear the financial burden, and how some people look at Kyoto and say the First World (oops!) isn't doing its bit on account of the carbon quotas, but "I don't think you can really criticise it, because people are trying to do the right thing".

It took her the space of approximately two minutes to take me from receptive to absolutely livid, at which point I walked out.

Thats the heirachy of civilisation right there... the New American Century.